SummaryMaximum Pressure For Claims Without Hedges
This type fires when an input uses definitive vocabulary — must, always, never, guaranteed, impossible, certain — that forecloses doubt and invites the reader to adopt the conclusion without qualification. The pressure this type applies scales with the absoluteness of the language: questions ask what evidence would disprove the claim, what conditions break it, and who would disagree. Prerequisites check that strength of claim matches strength of evidence, that scope is named, and that some disconfirmer is acknowledged. The goal is not to weaken confident claims but to ensure their confidence is load-bearing rather than rhetorical.
Type Identity
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Slug | strong-claim |
| Name | Strong Claim |
| Priority | high |
Detection Patterns
must, always, never, guaranteed, impossible, certain, definitely, obviously, clearly, undeniably, without question, proven, fact
Challenge Questions
| Question | Stakes tier |
|---|---|
| What evidence would disprove this? | baseline |
| Under what conditions does this NOT hold? | baseline |
| Who or what would disagree with this, and why? | elevated |
| What is the strongest version of the opposing view? | elevated |
| If this were wrong, how would you know? | rigorous |
Prerequisite Overlays
| Prerequisite | Check | Gap message if missing |
|---|---|---|
| evidence-for-strength | input contains "because", "data", "measured", "studies", "evidence" | "Strong claim lacks explicit evidence — strength of claim should match strength of evidence" |
| scope-named | input contains "in", "when", "for", "under" scoping language | "Strong claim has no scope — universal claims are almost always false at the edges" |
| disconfirmer-acknowledged | input contains "unless", "except", "assuming", "given" | "No disconfirmer acknowledged — what would change this claim?" |
Suggested Reframings
- Reframe as hypothesis: "We believe X because Y, and would reconsider if Z"
- Reframe with scope: "In contexts A and B, X holds; outside those, we have not tested"
- Reframe as falsifiable: "If we observed W, we would retract this claim"